On 12/11/09, Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/10/09 18:00, Alan Jenkins wrote: >> I did question "depends on RFKILL". If you manually configure a >> kernel, you will miss "If you have a modern Toshiba laptop with a >> Bluetooth and an RFKill switch (such as the Portege R500), say Y." >> unless you enable RFKILL first. (Which is unnecessary since the >> driver will work exactly the same with RFKILL=n). I wouldn't call it >> a strong objection, but it would be nice to hear the reason you >> included this dependency. >> >> Everything else looks fine. Thanks for working on this. >> Alan > > The driver is acting as RFKill functionality, even if it doesn't > provide it in full. We can pull that depend if you like, however > I still think it's awkward to offer a driver for a functionality > the user had previously said no to. Ok. You have the advantage of having hardware, so you have a better idea of what the user experience is going to be like. I can't find any more compelling argument for dropping the dependency. If it's just me feeling uneasy about this, then don't let me stop you. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
